[TruthTalk] Re: Fundamentalist

[Judy Taylor]

Sorry Lance, guess I got caught up in what you fellows are doing - if it is not exactly the same it is very, very close - see the following excerpt from your mentor TFT who has come up with an unscriptural dichotomy: Excerpt from God & Rationality - The theology of T.F. Torrance: Quote  ��Evangelical Protestantism has developed a way of preaching the Gospel which distorts and betrays it by introducing into it a subtle element of co-redemption. This happens whenever it is said that people will not be saved unless they make the work of Christ real for themselves by their personal decision, or that they will be saved only if they repent and believe, for this is to make the work of Christ conditional upon what the sinner does, and so at the crucial point it throws the ultimate responsibility for a man� salvation back upon himself. That is very far from being Good News for the sinner. . . . The message of the New Testament quite different. It announces that God loves us, that He has given His only Son to be our Saviour, that Christ has died for us when we were yet sinners, and that His work is finished, and therefore calls for repentance and the obedience of faith, but never does it say: This is what God in Christ has done for you, and you can be saved on condition that you repent and believe. The Gospel must be preached in an evangelical way, that is, in accordance with the nature and content of the Gospel of free grace, lest it is �another Gospel.� It is not faith that justifies us, but Christ in whom we have faith. But the history of Protestantism shows that it is possible to speak of justification by faith in such a way that the emphasis is shifted from �Christ� to �me�, so that what becomes finally important is �my faith,� �my decision,� �my conversion,� and not really Christ himself.� (God and Rationality, p. 58, his italics.) From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judyt:You know not whereof you speak. All raised in Christ does NOT=once saved always saved. All of us find it easier to substitute a charicature for critical thinking.   As to whether you're a 'fundie' or not?? If I (but that's just me) were a 'fundie profiler' I'd say yes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 19, 2004 12:05 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Fundamentalist Lance, You will need to send us a "Topical Index" of your (and Jonathan's) definitions.  I would not call anyone on Jonathan's list a Fundamentalist (as I understand it); there are people in this country who pride themselves on being "fighting fundies" They are usually Bob Jones University graduates or people from legalistic type sects, (some Southern Baptist though not all). I wouldn't put Izzy, Terry, DavidM, or myself in that category.  We don't agree on every detail, fighting fundies would have to agree on doctrine and you are sounding closer to their doctrine that us with your all encompassing incarnation.  They teach a type of Calvinism "Once saved, always saved" that would go along with the TFT teaching that "all rose with/in Christ"     From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> G:I don't think that it is the Vatican that produces 'fundamentalists'. Every group whether religious, political or social has a 'fundamentalist' component/wing. In such there tends to be a disdain for anything 'gray'. Black and white are preferred.[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 19, 2004 11:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Fundamentalist it's interesting that the activism of both Protestant and Catholic conservatives closely match on, e.g., abortion politics--jt and Izzy themselves are as anti-abortion as the Pope   apparently the Pope is a biblicist, too, and the match entails the conclusion that the Vatican produces 'fundamentalists'... G   On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:56:08 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ||   ..feel free to add to the list